Bioshock, Borderlands, XCOM will no longer be available after May

Share this story

Microsoft's $10 per month Xbox Games Pass subscription service will be seeing the first significant reduction in its game library at the end of May. That's when 21 available titles—primarily backward-compatible Xbox 360 games—will be rotating out of the service.

Microsoft has been adding seven to ten games to Games Pass every month since its launch last June, bringing the total number of Xbox One and Xbox 360 titles subscribers can download to over 170. Only a small handful of previously available titles have been removed during that run, including WWE 2K17, NBA 2K17, and Metal Gear Solid V.

Further Reading

Industry watchers (including yours truly) have been referring to Games Pass as a "Netflix for Games" since before its launch. But this is the first real sign that the service will mimic Netflix's practice of regularly cycling movies and TV shows in and out of its selection month to month. The end of May will represent exactly one year since Games Pass' full launch, suggesting that expiring year-long licensing agreements with third-party publishers could be behind the latest reductions.

While the bulk of Games Pass' selection is still made up of legacy titles at least one year old, Microsoft committed in January to making all of its first-party exclusive titles available to Games Pass subscribers on launch day. That likely helped Rare's Sea of Thievesreach a critical mass of two million players after a single week back in March, and it could help attract attention to State of Decay 2 and Crackdown 3 around their planned launches this year.

Games Pass subscribers can purchase any of the departing games (which are listed below and in a "Games Leaving Soon" section of the Games Pass interface) for 20 percent off list price, maintaining any progress stored in save files if they do. Subscribers may also be able to extend their access slightly by leaving their console in Offline mode, using a 30-day grace period before the service requires a server check to maintain access.

The titles leaving Xbox Games Pass at the end of May are listed below (all games are backward compatible Xbox 360 titles unless otherwise noted):

Share this story

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

The problem with the Netflix SOP is that movies can be finished in 2 hours. Some of these games can be played for 50 or 100 hours. Sports games can be - and frequently are - played for years. That significantly reduces the number of games that can be played during MS' 1 year license. The standard license for streaming games should be 3 - 5 years.

The value just isn't there otherwise. If you'd paid $120 to play Bioshock 1, 2 , Infinite, Borderlands and XCOM you might not even have finished them yet, and now you can't, whereas I'm pretty sure you could have just bought them for less than that.

The value just isn't there otherwise. If you'd paid $120 to play Bioshock 1, 2 , Infinite, Borderlands and XCOM you might not even have finished them yet, and now you can't, whereas I'm pretty sure you could have just bought them for less than that.

Maybe this is why Microsoft is throwing their own games in the service. It raises the value of the service when each exclusive (at least 4 this year) sell for 60$.

The problem with the Netflix SOP is that movies can be finished in 2 hours. Some of these games can be played for 50 or 100 hours. Sports games can be - and frequently are - played for years. That significantly reduces the number of games that can be played during MS' 1 year license. The standard license for streaming games should be 3 - 5 years.

The value just isn't there otherwise. If you'd paid $120 to play Bioshock 1, 2 , Infinite, Borderlands and XCOM you might not even have finished them yet, and now you can't, whereas I'm pretty sure you could have just bought them for less than that.

These are just trials. Sort of a try-before-you-buy sort of thing.

I don't see what the problem is. If you finish it, great. If you don't and you like it, you can buy it (very cheaply) and keep playing.

I think the thing that people don't understand is that the monthly free games on Live are not the primary driver for a subscription. It's just a nice side benefit...a random collection of full-game free trials.

The problem with the Netflix SOP is that movies can be finished in 2 hours. Some of these games can be played for 50 or 100 hours. Sports games can be - and frequently are - played for years. That significantly reduces the number of games that can be played during MS' 1 year license. The standard license for streaming games should be 3 - 5 years.

The value just isn't there otherwise. If you'd paid $120 to play Bioshock 1, 2 , Infinite, Borderlands and XCOM you might not even have finished them yet, and now you can't, whereas I'm pretty sure you could have just bought them for less than that.

So basically you're saying it's the service's fault that a user doesn't complete a game within the time frame that the game is available? I never blame Netflix when a show in my watch queue goes away before I got around to it. If anything, that tells me it was pretty low priority for me. But in the case of a user in a situation like you describe, the offer to purchase the title for 20% off is offered, which is more than I can say for Netflix.

BTW... XCOM, Borderlands and Bioshock Infinite have all been part of Games with Gold within the past 2 years, so presumably most people that that have been paying for this service probably own those particular games already for free.

I'd also point out plenty of people are paying $60 for a game like CoD and only play the 6-10 hour campaign. I can't help but laugh at the idea that $120 for 12 months of access to 170ish games is a bad value...

I'm not sure why people try to come to a universal judgment about subscription services. The same debates are cycled over music, movies, TV, and now games. The value of the service depends on your particular usage pattern, and there are different broad groups of usage patterns, so value varies accordingly. This gets even more complicated when you consider many households will have more than one user.

If you're a hardcore gamer and play the same titles 5 hours a day, then buying your titles outright will make more sense than a monthly subscription to a wide assortment of titles. If you are a casual gamer, a bit of a dilettante, where you'll enjoy being able to cycle through games without needing to justify $60 for each, then buy a subscription. If you're somewhere in between (like me), you'll buy the title or two you play regularly and use the game pass to try new games, that you wouldn't ordinarily fork out $60 for. It's fun to try out new games I wouldn't ordinarily buy or try, and occasionally, you're like "hey, this game is awesome, I want to own this one".

The problem with the Netflix SOP is that movies can be finished in 2 hours. Some of these games can be played for 50 or 100 hours. Sports games can be - and frequently are - played for years. That significantly reduces the number of games that can be played during MS' 1 year license. The standard license for streaming games should be 3 - 5 years.

The value just isn't there otherwise. If you'd paid $120 to play Bioshock 1, 2 , Infinite, Borderlands and XCOM you might not even have finished them yet, and now you can't, whereas I'm pretty sure you could have just bought them for less than that.

These are just trials. Sort of a try-before-you-buy sort of thing.

I don't see what the problem is. If you finish it, great. If you don't and you like it, you can buy it (very cheaply) and keep playing.

I think the thing that people don't understand is that the monthly free games on Live are not the primary driver for a subscription. It's just a nice side benefit...a random collection of full-game free trials.

For $5/month.

I remember when "trials" were free. Now you have to pay for the privileged of trying a game to see if you like it.

The problem with the Netflix SOP is that movies can be finished in 2 hours. Some of these games can be played for 50 or 100 hours. Sports games can be - and frequently are - played for years. That significantly reduces the number of games that can be played during MS' 1 year license. The standard license for streaming games should be 3 - 5 years.

The value just isn't there otherwise. If you'd paid $120 to play Bioshock 1, 2 , Infinite, Borderlands and XCOM you might not even have finished them yet, and now you can't, whereas I'm pretty sure you could have just bought them for less than that.

These are just trials. Sort of a try-before-you-buy sort of thing.

I don't see what the problem is. If you finish it, great. If you don't and you like it, you can buy it (very cheaply) and keep playing.

I think the thing that people don't understand is that the monthly free games on Live are not the primary driver for a subscription. It's just a nice side benefit...a random collection of full-game free trials.

For $5/month.

I remember when "trials" were free. Now you have to pay for the privileged of trying a game to see if you like it.

What a world.

Except those trials were maybe the first level and one multiplayer map. These trials are the full game.

This is ideal for me. I dont buy $60 games anymore but I would like to test them out without spending too much.

Why are demos dead BTW?

My local library has a stack of video games they lend out. Just walked there yesterday to pick up Nier: Automata. It's not online based, but I can certainly see the appeal of having some sort of limited access to play games, especially now that Blockbuster and the like have been long dead.

And here's the problem with digital distribution, especially subscription-based digital distribution. Anything can vanish at any time for any reason and then it's just gone. At least if a software producer who put their games out on an optical disc goes under or withdraws its license to distribute its product from retails or whatever those of you who bought the game can still play it (unless it's wholly or mostly dependant on servers that also get shut down).

Suddenly the days of cartridges you had to blow in to make them work don't seem so bad. At least we can still play those games, even decades later. What happens when the plug gets pulled on a game that never saw distribution by any physical means? Are we entering a gaming dark age where certain games will end up being like certain Dr. Who episodes and only exist in the memories of fans who were lucky enough to experience them before they were yanked?

Demos still exist, they're just the bastion of conventions/conferences rather than public-access. At least there, they're going to get the attention of journos and megafans who will lavish praise upon them for a few nuggets of gameplay, whereas a publicly-released demo would probably confuse modern gamers used to paying for beta access. /s

uhh.... they aren't supposed to be removed.. that's one of the perks of the game pass.

W...T...F? Did a contract run out? Or a court case happened?

This shouldn't be happening.

RTFA: "The end of May will represent exactly one year since Games Pass' full launch, suggesting that expiring year-long licensing agreements with third-party publishers could be behind the latest reductions."

Also whilst it may a little buried in the fine print, it is still stated pretty clearly on the XBox marketing page for Game Pass: "Titles and number of games included may vary over time and by country, and may not be available in all countries."

The problem with the Netflix SOP is that movies can be finished in 2 hours. Some of these games can be played for 50 or 100 hours. Sports games can be - and frequently are - played for years. That significantly reduces the number of games that can be played during MS' 1 year license. The standard license for streaming games should be 3 - 5 years.

The value just isn't there otherwise. If you'd paid $120 to play Bioshock 1, 2 , Infinite, Borderlands and XCOM you might not even have finished them yet, and now you can't, whereas I'm pretty sure you could have just bought them for less than that.

These are just trials. Sort of a try-before-you-buy sort of thing.

I don't see what the problem is. If you finish it, great. If you don't and you like it, you can buy it (very cheaply) and keep playing.

I think the thing that people don't understand is that the monthly free games on Live are not the primary driver for a subscription. It's just a nice side benefit...a random collection of full-game free trials.

For $5/month.

I remember when "trials" were free. Now you have to pay for the privileged of trying a game to see if you like it.

What a world.

Except those trials were maybe the first level and one multiplayer map. These trials are the full game.

This is ideal for me. I dont buy $60 games anymore but I would like to test them out without spending too much.

Why are demos dead BTW?

Demos are dead because they cost money to make and research has shown that they don't often result in significantly more sales. In fact, they can often have the opposite effect, as people play the demo and decide not to buy the game, either because they didn't like the demo, or because they decided the demo was enough for them.

The problem with the Netflix SOP is that movies can be finished in 2 hours. Some of these games can be played for 50 or 100 hours. Sports games can be - and frequently are - played for years. That significantly reduces the number of games that can be played during MS' 1 year license. The standard license for streaming games should be 3 - 5 years.

The value just isn't there otherwise. If you'd paid $120 to play Bioshock 1, 2 , Infinite, Borderlands and XCOM you might not even have finished them yet, and now you can't, whereas I'm pretty sure you could have just bought them for less than that.

These are just trials. Sort of a try-before-you-buy sort of thing.

I don't see what the problem is. If you finish it, great. If you don't and you like it, you can buy it (very cheaply) and keep playing.

I think the thing that people don't understand is that the monthly free games on Live are not the primary driver for a subscription. It's just a nice side benefit...a random collection of full-game free trials.

For $5/month.

I remember when "trials" were free. Now you have to pay for the privileged of trying a game to see if you like it.

What a world.

Except those trials were maybe the first level and one multiplayer map. These trials are the full game.

The problem with the Netflix SOP is that movies can be finished in 2 hours. Some of these games can be played for 50 or 100 hours. Sports games can be - and frequently are - played for years. That significantly reduces the number of games that can be played during MS' 1 year license. The standard license for streaming games should be 3 - 5 years.

The value just isn't there otherwise. If you'd paid $120 to play Bioshock 1, 2 , Infinite, Borderlands and XCOM you might not even have finished them yet, and now you can't, whereas I'm pretty sure you could have just bought them for less than that.

So basically you're saying it's the service's fault that a user doesn't complete a game within the time frame that the game is available? I never blame Netflix when a show in my watch queue goes away before I got around to it. If anything, that tells me it was pretty low priority for me. But in the case of a user in a situation like you describe, the offer to purchase the title for 20% off is offered, which is more than I can say for Netflix.

BTW... XCOM, Borderlands and Bioshock Infinite have all been part of Games with Gold within the past 2 years, so presumably most people that that have been paying for this service probably own those particular games already for free.

I'd also point out plenty of people are paying $60 for a game like CoD and only play the 6-10 hour campaign. I can't help but laugh at the idea that $120 for 12 months of access to 170ish games is a bad value...

Just a quick question, why are you paying $120?

xBox Live Gold is $60/yr and includes Game Pass.

EDIT: Hmmm....maybe I'm wrong. After looking around online, it appears they're separate services. But with Live Gold I get access to a bunch of games that rotate each month. Are those different than what's available to Game Pass members?

EDIT2: yeah...I was totally mixing Gold with Game Pass. But now I see why MS isn't so worried about console sales and more interested in subscription services vs Sony.

The problem with the Netflix SOP is that movies can be finished in 2 hours. Some of these games can be played for 50 or 100 hours. Sports games can be - and frequently are - played for years. That significantly reduces the number of games that can be played during MS' 1 year license. The standard license for streaming games should be 3 - 5 years.

The value just isn't there otherwise. If you'd paid $120 to play Bioshock 1, 2 , Infinite, Borderlands and XCOM you might not even have finished them yet, and now you can't, whereas I'm pretty sure you could have just bought them for less than that.

These are just trials. Sort of a try-before-you-buy sort of thing.

I don't see what the problem is. If you finish it, great. If you don't and you like it, you can buy it (very cheaply) and keep playing.

I think the thing that people don't understand is that the monthly free games on Live are not the primary driver for a subscription. It's just a nice side benefit...a random collection of full-game free trials.

For $5/month.

I remember when "trials" were free. Now you have to pay for the privileged of trying a game to see if you like it.

What a world.

Except those trials were maybe the first level and one multiplayer map. These trials are the full game.

If it's the full game, it's not a trial.

It's a time-based trial. Not a content-based trial.

The official XBox Game Pass page states, "Play as much as you want, whenever you want" as well as, "Xbox Game Pass members enjoy unlimited access to over 100 great games within Xbox Game Pass catalog, until either the subscription is canceled/expires, or a game leaves the Game Pass catalog." I fail to see how games on their service can be considered trials. True, you don't own the game, but if anything it's more like a rental.

The problem with the Netflix SOP is that movies can be finished in 2 hours. Some of these games can be played for 50 or 100 hours. Sports games can be - and frequently are - played for years. That significantly reduces the number of games that can be played during MS' 1 year license. The standard license for streaming games should be 3 - 5 years.

The value just isn't there otherwise. If you'd paid $120 to play Bioshock 1, 2 , Infinite, Borderlands and XCOM you might not even have finished them yet, and now you can't, whereas I'm pretty sure you could have just bought them for less than that.

So basically you're saying it's the service's fault that a user doesn't complete a game within the time frame that the game is available? I never blame Netflix when a show in my watch queue goes away before I got around to it. If anything, that tells me it was pretty low priority for me. But in the case of a user in a situation like you describe, the offer to purchase the title for 20% off is offered, which is more than I can say for Netflix.

BTW... XCOM, Borderlands and Bioshock Infinite have all been part of Games with Gold within the past 2 years, so presumably most people that that have been paying for this service probably own those particular games already for free.

I'd also point out plenty of people are paying $60 for a game like CoD and only play the 6-10 hour campaign. I can't help but laugh at the idea that $120 for 12 months of access to 170ish games is a bad value...

Just a quick question, why are you paying $120?

xBox Live Gold is $60/yr and includes Game Pass.

EDIT: Hmmm....maybe I'm wrong. After looking around online, it appears they're separate services. But with Live Gold I get access to a bunch of games that rotate each month. Are those different than what's available to Game Pass members?

They are separate, complementary subscriptions.

XBL Gold ($60/yr) gets you Xbox online multiplayer support and the monthly Games with Gold freebies/discounts (2-3 games at a time, which you have to manually unlock the month they are advertised). The free games you unlock through this are semi-permanent -- they don't get removed from the catalog, but you lose access if you stop your Gold sub.

Game Pass ($10/mo) gets you rental access to the catalog of 100+ Game Pass games and a discount on purchasing games from that catalog (20% off?). Also note that any games that are Play Anywhere can be downloaded and played on PC (via the Windows Store) as part of this.

The problem with the Netflix SOP is that movies can be finished in 2 hours. Some of these games can be played for 50 or 100 hours. Sports games can be - and frequently are - played for years. That significantly reduces the number of games that can be played during MS' 1 year license. The standard license for streaming games should be 3 - 5 years.

The value just isn't there otherwise. If you'd paid $120 to play Bioshock 1, 2 , Infinite, Borderlands and XCOM you might not even have finished them yet, and now you can't, whereas I'm pretty sure you could have just bought them for less than that.

The console vendors have an impeccable position for introducing these plans; but, for the reasons you note, it's hard to make them seem like a good idea in the medium or longer term.

Since they've ratcheted 'rudimentary internet connectivity' into a paid-tier feature they've already got a suitably gigantic audience with known internet connections, consoles, and payment details on file, and 'hey, here's a free* bonus with your subscription!' generally doesn't take much persuading; but beyond that things get tricky.

Really old games can presumably be licensed from the publishers for peanuts; but that means their purchase price is also peanuts and many of them run on pretty much anything turning complete(or, if console, even a pretty scungy used model from a generation or two ago). New games cannot be licensed for peanuts; so you either have to cut your margins on the 'allow multiplayer' unlock fee, in order to pay the publishers actual money without raising your prices; or raise your prices and exposure yourself to an unflattering estimate of your value.

It doesn't help that the interests of the publisher and the would-be game renter/streamer are largely at odds:

Games with awful replay value are a good deal on a rental/temp basis; but if you know your game has awful replay value why would you voluntarily take a slice of some $10 subscription and have your players burn through the few hours of game that are really worth it rather than trying to sell copies, even if you have to discount a bit?

Games with great replay value are a lousy value on a rental/temp basis; but great value in $/hour of entertainment even at release-day prices; so while the rental/streamer would like to have a library of those to keep you coming back why would the publisher license them(for any remotely affordable rate) before they are considered played out?

It looks even worse with what appears to be a lengthening console lifecycle. If the new-hotness console comes in and smashes everything quite regularly the appeal of having an old game stash is substantially confined to PC gamers and nerds with AV cabinets brimming with every console since the NES. If console generations are now spanning an increasing number of years(plus backward compatibility in a nontrivial percentage of cases) the value of a 'rental' for all but seriously forgettable or uninteresting games looks pretty lousy because the new hotness won't come sweeping in and change everything in the near future; so a purchase means years of at least having the option to play; while a rental would get pretty usurious for the same thing.

Having stuff disappear from the catalog seems like the kiss of death, though: If you could at least guarantee a solid, predictable, lineup(and ideally a bottomless back catalog; so even a hardened bundle-sniping bargain hunter would find it hard to argue that they could have accumulated such a collection for equivalent money) then it would be easy enough to go with the "eh, $120 is basically just two AAAs a year; possibly a bit less wtth DLC and launch prices these days; it's fine"(especially when it's just an add-on to a subscription you already pay for; not cracking open your wallet for a new subscription; incremental upsells are usually easier); but people hate losing things; substantially more than they like getting them; so a scenario where you visibly yank things away periodically? Each one you remove probably hurts more than two or three additions helps. Not a good sell.

All of the titles mentioned were free with Gold, if i'm not mistaken... So anyone who already had Gold subscription already had those games...

I don't see any advantage on this "rental" like system that MS is trying to sell... Gold subscribers already get 4 games for free each month without spending extra money, plus the line up of titles available is not that appealing (imho).

If you're someone who intends on playing 1-2 Microsoft exclusives every year, then the subscription is a no-brainer. If you're not, then it depends on how much of a backlog you have of slightly older games you want to play.

And here's the problem with digital distribution, especially subscription-based digital distribution. Anything can vanish at any time for any reason and then it's just gone. At least if a software producer who put their games out on an optical disc goes under or withdraws its license to distribute its product from retails or whatever those of you who bought the game can still play it (unless it's wholly or mostly dependant on servers that also get shut down).

Suddenly the days of cartridges you had to blow in to make them work don't seem so bad. At least we can still play those games, even decades later. What happens when the plug gets pulled on a game that never saw distribution by any physical means? Are we entering a gaming dark age where certain games will end up being like certain Dr. Who episodes and only exist in the memories of fans who were lucky enough to experience them before they were yanked?

That's why there are a lot of us who work on preservation.

The problem though... you still get branded as pirates and they will still shut you down over titles they haven't been using/selling for years.

I just got a One X and this service has zero pull for me. I even have free time, a free month, and the extra month I paid for just to try it out. I think I'll just buy the stuff I like (if they quit stopping me from doing so with outdated security) and cancel the service. You have to get real titles redone with "Enhanced for Xbox One X" before this gets attractive. Some day this may be worth it, but right now, I'm not the target audience apparently.

I just got a One X and this service has zero pull for me. I even have free time, a free month, and the extra month I paid for just to try it out. I think I'll just buy the stuff I like (if they quit stopping me from doing so with outdated security) and cancel the service. You have to get real titles redone with "Enhanced for Xbox One X" before this gets attractive. Some day this may be worth it, but right now, I'm not the target audience apparently.

It feels like EA Pass which is another thing I avoid.

I'm confused.

1) You can't download games from Game Pass, cancel the service, and keep those games. That would be a ruinous oversight on their part.

2) The "Enhanced for One X" stuff has to do with backward compatibility, which is in no way linked to Game Pass.

I just got a One X and this service has zero pull for me. I even have free time, a free month, and the extra month I paid for just to try it out. I think I'll just buy the stuff I like (if they quit stopping me from doing so with outdated security) and cancel the service. You have to get real titles redone with "Enhanced for Xbox One X" before this gets attractive. Some day this may be worth it, but right now, I'm not the target audience apparently.

It feels like EA Pass which is another thing I avoid.

I'm confused.

1) You can't download games from Game Pass, cancel the service, and keep those games. That would be a ruinous oversight on their part.

All Game Pass games can be purchased to own permanently at a 20% discount. So if you pay $10 for a month of Game Pass, then use it to buy a few Game Pass games at 20% off, the discount will effectively pay for the subscription. That's what Falsadoom was referring to.

I just got a One X and this service has zero pull for me. I even have free time, a free month, and the extra month I paid for just to try it out. I think I'll just buy the stuff I like (if they quit stopping me from doing so with outdated security) and cancel the service. You have to get real titles redone with "Enhanced for Xbox One X" before this gets attractive. Some day this may be worth it, but right now, I'm not the target audience apparently.

It feels like EA Pass which is another thing I avoid.

I'm confused.

1) You can't download games from Game Pass, cancel the service, and keep those games. That would be a ruinous oversight on their part.

All Game Pass games can be purchased to own permanently at a 20% discount. So if you pay $10 for a month of Game Pass, then use it to buy a few Game Pass games at 20% off, the discount will effectively pay for the subscription. That's what Falsadoom was referring to.